I took time away from writing and blogging over Christmas and New Years to spend time with family. During that break I stumbled across a blatantly biased propaganda video on YouTube which I need to vent about a little here. It was advertised as a rebuttal to those people who believe in carrying arms for self defense. Unfortunately, it is not an objective, well-reasoned argument that is open for rebuttal, rather it is a pretty obvious attempt to push an agenda with a biased argument.

The video, which was produced, allegedly, by a national news organization, is based around the following scenario: an average person is given some basic target practice training with a handgun built to resemble a Glock-type semiautomatic weapon but that fires a paint projectile. This person is taught how to carry the weapon in a strong-side concealment holster, with a thumb break and then put in a mock classroom with other 'students' (who happen to be police officers if I remember correctly). The trainee is the only one in the room with a weapon. Everyone in the classroom is dressed in protective clothing, with helmets and face shields. They pretend they are in a class with someone instructing at the podium when a 'gunman', actually the officer who trained the young man with the gun who is acting a student, enters and begins to shoot.

The trainee jumps up, tries to get to his gun, which hangs up with his shirt as he tries to free it, he is shot twice by the 'gunman'.

Wow. That's proof that the average person is incapable of handling a firearm and protecting even himself, forget about others.

But.... Not so fast. Here is what really happened.

The young man was experienced at shooting an airsoft gun at a paper target. He was given basically the same 'training' with his Glock-like paint gun. No other self-defense handgun training, just stand there and shoot paint pellets at a target for a while.

He was given a concealment holster with a thumb break. Now, most of us don't use a thumb break on a concealment holster because it is concealed, and a good holster doesn't need a thumb break to secure the weapon.

He was dressed with a tight-fitting, long bodied and long sleeved heavy T-shirt which fit snugly around the gun and holster. This is something that one normally would not wear with a concealed weapon. First of all, it prints badly. Second, it can be an impediment to getting access to your weapon.

The "gunman". Here is where it gets really biased. At some point in the 'lecture', the gunman entered, raised his gun and started shooting. Who did he target first? Our trainee of course. The officer who had trained our subject knew exactly where he was sitting and who he was. So, while our subject attempted to free his gun from his t-shirt and thumb break holster, while being targeted immediately by the gunman, he was shot twice. The gunman did not bother to shoot at anyone else.

Sound like a setup to you? Did to me too.

While there is no guarantee that a legally-armed individual sitting in a lecture hall could stop a sudden attack by a gunman, it is almost certain that in a real situation the legally-armed student would not be at the same disadvantages as our trainee was burdened with. For example, my handgun is carried in such a position and with a good holster such that I can access it pretty quickly without worrying about hanging up in clothing or dealing with a thumb break holster. There is also little chance that a gunman would pick me out as the only armed individual in the room and open fire on me right away. Possible that I might be the first one targeted, but highly unlikely. Even so, the gunman would have to be accurate and be able to put a round or two into me right away. Also unlikely.

I think little more needs to be said about this with a couple of exceptions.

If you carry for self defense (a category that, for me, includes the defense of innocent people who happen to be involved) you must be able to react realistically and accurately. You must so equip yourself that your carry system is reliable - you can quickly get to your gun from almost any position, especially sitting -, your gun is reliable - it shoots when you pull the trigger -, and that you can absolutely hit what you aim at. This is especially true when there are innocent people and bystanders involved.

A final point. I would rather have a citizen struggling to access their gun in a situation like that than for everyone to be unarmed and totally at the mercy of a killer with a gun.